[meteorite-list] CRW

[martinh at isu.edu]

Hi Kevin and All,

Kevin, I was surprised and happy to read about the CRW as I had a similar thought a while ago and approached it a little differently in my Accretion Desk column about eTKW at:

http://www.meteoritetimes.com/Back_Links/2004/June/Accretion_Desk.htm

I played around with CRW with a few specimens with varying results. Take for example Agen and Chantonnay. Both have ~30kg TKWs but their CRW is quite low. Yet both seem to be fairly well distributed.

On the other hand, Jerome Idaho has an extremly low CRW, yet I have a 4.x kg main mass sitting on my desk. 

I would like to know when and how the info for the catalogue was gathered as I know there have been many changes in the past decade. Plus, in quite a few cases, the original dealer of the material is listed as the source of the main mass, but that mass has long been sliced and diced and smeared across the free world.

I do believe that both eTKW and CRW are important pieces of the puzzle, but short of a global
 inventory, we are often just shooting in the dark, or maybe the dusk.

Cheers,

Martin


----- Original Message -----
From: MARSROX at aol.com
Date: Thursday, April 21, 2005 8:02 pm
Subject: [meteorite-list] CRW

> Guten nacht, Martin (and list members):
> 
> I noted your reference on  the m-list to "CRW" - catalogue 
> repository weight. 
> This is my invention and a  tool to better assess the available 
> universe of 
> old and/or historic  meteorites when trying to predict value. 
> 
> 
> It is not difficult to calculate. Just go to Monica's edition of 
> the  Cat of 
> Mets, find the meteorite you want to know about, and add up all the 
> 
> repository weights. These weights represent a "snap shot" in time 
> and can be  compared 
> to the listed gross TKW. 
> 
> 
> I realize that since that snap shot was "taken," some of that  
> particular 
> meteorite's listed institutional material has been traded, lost,  
> destroyed in 
> research, etc. But the point is, the public us
ually presumes value  
> based on the 
> TKW. 
> 
> 
> As an example, consider a historic met that fell in 1790 with a 
> listed  TKW 
> of 10 kg., public perception will base their buy/sell decisions on 
> that  
> weight. I suggest that should you add up the CRW and come up with 1 
> kg,  that figure 
> better represents reality and should be used when making your own  
> value 
> judgment.
> 
> 
> Kevin Kichinka
> 
> ______________________________________________
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>